Skip to main content
Glama
Mipiti

Mipiti MCP Server

by Mipiti
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Hybrid

Add Functional Test

add_functional_test

Register a single functional test and map it to one or more objectives when generation missed it; it survives regeneration and records your claimed status.

Instructions

Hand-author a single functional test and map it to one or more objectives. Mutating.

Generation (generate_functional_objectives) already specifies the tests to implement, so use this only to register an extra test that generation did not produce; a manually-added test survives regeneration/refresh. For bulk-registering tests that already exist in your codebase, use import_functional_tests instead. This records the test at the status you claim — it does not run or verify anything; CI verification happens only when you attach TEST_EXISTS/TEST_ATTESTED evidence via submit_assertions with functional_test_id.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
statusNonot_implemented | implemented | verified — an operator claim only; an independent CI run is what actually verifies the test. Defaults to not_implemented.not_implemented
model_idYesID of the threat model.
descriptionYesWhat the test proves.
component_idsNoComma-separated component ids the test exercises (optional).
server_versionYes
functional_objective_idsYesComma-separated objective ids the test satisfies (at least one required; get them from get_functional_objectives).

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv0.68.2
    • changedInput schema / properties / functional_objective_ids / description
      Previous value: -"Comma-separated objective ids the test satisfies (at least one required; get them from list_functional_objectives)."New value: +"Comma-separated objective ids the test satisfies (at least one required; get them from get_functional_objectives)."
  2. Changed2 schema fields changedv0.66.0
    • changedInput schema / properties / functional_objective_ids / description
      Previous value: -"Comma-separated objective ids the test satisfies."New value: +"Comma-separated objective ids the test satisfies (at least one required; get them from list_functional_objectives)."
    • changedInput schema / properties / status / description
      Previous value: -"not_implemented | implemented | verified (an operator claim;\nan independent CI run is what actually verifies it)."New value: +"not_implemented | implemented | verified — an operator claim only; an independent CI run is what actually verifies the test. Defaults to not_implemented."
  3. Addedv0.62.2
  4. Removedv0.62.0
  5. First observedv0.57.0

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and delivers: it declares the operation mutating, discloses a durability trait ('a manually-added test survives regeneration/refresh'), and draws the critical boundary that the recorded status is a claim only and is not run or verified here. That is exactly the kind of non-obvious behavior an agent needs.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Three sentences, each load-bearing: purpose first, then the disambiguation against the two sibling tools, then the verification caveat. No filler and the routing information is front-loaded.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a 6-param mutation tool with an output schema already present, nothing an agent needs is missing — required inputs are covered by the schema, and the description supplies the usage, persistence and verification context the schema cannot.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 83%, so the schema already documents status, functional_objective_ids, component_ids and the rest. The description reinforces the status-is-a-claim semantics and points to get_functional_objectives for ids, but adds little beyond the schema text, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb+resource ('Hand-author a single functional test') plus the mapping side-effect ('map it to one or more objectives') and flags 'Mutating.' An agent can distinguish this from import_functional_tests and generate_functional_objectives without opening any schema.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Explicitly says generation already specifies the tests, so use this only for an extra test generation did not produce, and names the alternative for bulk-registering existing tests (import_functional_tests). Both the when and the when-not are stated, plus a downstream note about CI verification via submit_assertions.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server

Other Tools